2012 Contest Results

Kramer and Conklin take first place with “Radiation on the reservation,” a package of articles on members of the Spokane Tribe who once worked on uranium mines and are dying because of their exposure to radioactive material.

The judge wrote, “Kramer weaves the human with the technical to build a strong case that this tribe’s ills are rooted in careless practices that exposed them and their families to radioactive ore. It is an astonishing piece of reporting that casts a bright light on a little-known period of the country’s history and how it reverberates in troubling ways to the present.”

The judge also commented on Kramer’s “engaging writing rich in detail and humanity” and Conklin’s “dramatic photography” to accompany the pieces.

Second place goes to the Cocke’s series “Up in the Air” about a controversy in Hawaii regarding wind farms and their impact of the environment and the community.

“Moving with the controversy from island to island, Cocke puts us right in the middle of passionate debates by local residents about how to develop energy without destroying the environment that is so valuable both to residents and the tourism industry. Cocke’s fine writing is further enriched by terrific videos online that capture not only the strong feelings of residents, but the unrelenting wind in the background,” the judge commented.

“What could have been a dry utility story is passionately human in this writer’s hands.”

“With the clarity and relentlessness of an investigative reporter, Bruce Finley examines the environmental hazards of increased oil and gas drilling in Colorado and what it means for the environment. Finley captures the pressure on the state to up production and at the same time protect environmental resources,” the judge wrote.

“Finley moves logically from one layer of the story to next. This is very fine accountability reporting.”

“The staff of 35 jumped all over this truly breaking news event, when Gabby Giffords and more than a dozen others were shot, with six killed,” the judge wrote.

“The staff updated the Web story nearly 170 times, when the public was hungry for information, and then came back to address different facets of the shooting – and those affected – throughout the day. For a small staff, this is truly thorough and remarkable work.”

“Here’s an example of covering all aspects of a story and making a difference,” the judge wrote. “In this example, Civil Beat told readers about homeless who were left during the evacuation as the tsunami approached. The paper also effected change when it revealed that the state’s cell system failed during the tsunami, prompting AT&T to dedicate money to fix the system ahead of future emergencies.

“A great example of classic watchdog reporting, this story is a well-woven dissection of a multi-million dollar project in a state that is well known for its ‘largesse,'” the judge wrote. “The deeply reported story peeled back layer after layer with clear, crisp writing – raising serious questions about the viability of what may become the next Alaska boondoggle.”

“This was surely a talk story, red meat for readers struggling amid a still sputtering economy,” the judge wrote. “The story examined the public cost of a common perk among government workers: cashing out unused sick time, a perk that is unheard of in the private sector.”

“Excellent reporting in pulling together detailed numbers, well-told, with a strong visual presentation. It is precisely the kind of reporting that highlights the importance of the newspapers’ continued vigilance.”

“This rich narrative pulled together all of the threads in the strange and twisted tale of sexual abuse, politics and religion,” the judge wrote. “Relying largely on documents, the reporter was able to weave a complex tale in a compelling read.”

The judge added, “Overall, the three winners highlight the important watchdog role of the media as the eyes and ears of readers. The task is all the more important now in the midst of seismic industry changes – and these stories delivered. Bravo.”

Ryman and Kossan take first place for “The Race to Online,” a series on Arizona’s initiatives to promote virtual education.

“Online education is often reported on by technology media outlets or business reporters with a booster-ish tone and a celebration of yet another way the Internet can make life easier,” the judge wrote. “The Republic, instead, carefully described how online education works for parents and students, the fiscal pressures pushing Arizona to embrace it, and the businesses trying to profit from it.

“The depth of reporting is impressive. Each installment is a compelling read, and the multiple stories about real students and families complements the detailed reporting on test scores, budget cuts and education policy.”

The judge admired how “the Deseret News and reporter Sara Israelsen-Hartley tackled an issue that has divided politicians, voters and newsrooms for decades … and did it for an audience that many editors (I believe) would shy away from offending.

“There’s no screaming in this piece, in that it avoids the extremes of the abortion debate. It treats the readers like adults … introducing them to thoughtful voices on both sides. In the future, I’ll assign this as required reading for any reporter who’s tasked with reporting on abortion and reproductive health.”

The series “lays out the information clearly and fairly,” the judge added.

Referring to Levine and Temple’s use of social media, the judge noted that “the use of case studies and call to readers to evaluate them impressed this reader. This project ought to spur similar reporting on state and local governments across the country.”

Overall, the judge wrote, “this was an extremely difficult category to judge. All but a few entries are contest-winning works of journalism and the reporters and editors who worked on them deserve recognition. I was particularly impressed with the entries from the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star, as well as those submitted by the Sacramento Bee and the Seattle Times. These four news organizations supported multiple long-form and multi-part reporting projects tackling issues important to their communities, regions and even the country at large.”

In closing, the judge noted that “it’s hard to be a cynic about the state of journalism today after reading these 38 entries.”

McKinnon wins first place with his three-part reconstruction of the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at a political event in Tucson.

“This is a story we all knew – or thought we knew until we read “Collision Course Toward Morning,” the judge wrote. “Shaun McKinnon doesn’t wear out his reader, rather he contrasted the ordinariness of what started as a typical day but ended with extraordinary tragedy.”

“Breaking it into three parts was a great way to present it to readers. It was so well told. We applaud this kind of work.”

Loomis takes second place with an in-depth series on the perils facing the Alpine forests of the American West due to beetle infestation caused by global warming.

“Masterfully told and presented,” the judge wrote, “‘Our Dying Forests’ goes beyond ‘just another global warming story.’ We could feel the pain of the residents who had watched as the pines are being destroyed by beetles. Excellent writing and exceptional visuals made this piece stand out in a category where the competition was truly fierce. Reading “Our Dying Forests” reminded us of some of the writings of conservationist Aldo Leopold.”

“This is a story every community in America could do, but doesn’t. The Post did, and did it well,” the judge wrote. “Great research, fascinating statistics and done in a way that was balanced. Wish we had done it!”

“It would have been enough if reporters Michael J. Berens and Ken Armstrong had simply uncovered that up to 2,173 people died after taking the painkiller methadone, a drug recommended by the state of Washington as part of an effort to save money,” the judge wrote. “That alone would have been scandalous.

“But this powerful series of stories went far beyond – capturing the pain for victims and families, the role of clueless state health officials, the recklessness of a new state law, and the fact that the state’s poorest citizens were the most likely to be victimized. For readers, it helps that the stories are simply told and accompanied by powerful photos, graphics, and video. This is classic public service journalism on a topic that spent years hidden from public view.”

Second place goes to the staff of the Center for Investigative Reporting and California Watch for “Decoding Prime.”

“U.S. health care is in crisis mode at every level, and these revelations help readers understand why,” the judge wrote.

“Using a massive database to sort through 51 million patient records, California Watch was able to document how a hospital chain could bleed money from Medicare by diagnosing patients with more severe and obscure diseases than they likely had. It’s the kind of behavior long suspected in the field, but this series provides the proof. An FBI and state investigation are in progress.”

“Reporter Charles Piller’s investigation of California’s biggest public works project in history produced immediate results – public outrage, legislative hearings, and a criminal investigation,” the judge wrote. “And much of it happened within days of his first report.”

“Clear writing and excellent graphics helped readers grasp the technical aspects of the story. And Bay Area citizens will benefit from the new safety tests ordered up in the wake of the revelations about current and past problems.”

Overall, the judge wrote, “this was an incredible collection of fine work from across the region and narrowing the field to only three winners proved difficult. Reporters and editors at over a dozen newspapers (and investigative nonprofits) uncovered dangerous drugs and schools, rogue police departments, water scandals, prisoners denied habeas rights, the perils of private prisons, and a corrupt congressman. These watchdogs found questionable spending on homeland security, state employee pensions, and by a school superintendent who solicited birthday gifts for his daughter from contractors.

“Many of the results were published in compelling online presentations with video and interactive graphics. Despite everything going on in the business of journalism, these entries prove there is much inspirational – and critically important – public service work being done.”

“The story of a felled tree is surprisingly moving in this writer’s hands,” the judge wrote. “She conveys the tree’s impact on the people who saw it, and the descriptions add emotion to the scene. … The writer also creates a sense of place with the people she interviewed and the history of this small stretch of highway.”

“The writer takes the meaty subject of urban squirrel eating and shows how followers of the locavore movement can take it to the extreme. The story is told with great detail and humor,” the judge wrote.

“The writer’s light touch made the story an entertaining, and educational, read.”

Third place goes to Brown for a feature “Will They Huddle Again?” on New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s relationship with his mentor, Tom Martinez, who died early this year after a long battle with diabetes.

“The writer tells an inspiring story of an ailing coach and his famous student, Tom Brady,” the judge wrote. “He avoids getting overly sentimental. Personal details about their 20-year relationship help bring the story to life.”

Overall, the judge noted, “entries for this category had such a broad range: decorated war veterans, survivors of serious health problems … and a woman who eats squirrels. When considering the judging criteria – literary quality, creativity and flair – the three winners stood out for their commitment to their craft.”

Lomax takes second with “Texas Tweakers” an article about the meth scene and one of its central figures, James “Bull” Durham.

“This remarkably talented, smart writer uses first-rate reporting and humor to inform and entertain his readers. The result is a powerful look into the world of the Texas Tweakers that’s full of characters drawn so well you can smell them,” the judge writes.

The judge adds, “The story is so daring and creative that I’m surprised it saw the light of day in its current form in a newspaper. (Kudos to the editors. You are rock stars, too.)”

“The power of this heartbreaking piece comes from the writer’s brilliant choice to go small to say something big – by using the voice messages left on one 9/11 victim’s cell phone as the framework,” the judge wrote.

“Maybe the best anniversary story ever written.”

The judge added, “The editors of these top three pieces are heroes for supporting such great stuff, and not dumbing it down. I’ll remember these stories for a long time.”

Judged by Colleen Kenney, director of publications, University of Nebraska Foundation. 73 entries.

“The lead grabs the reader by the throat, keeps them riveted with telling detail and rings with great authority,” the judge wrote. “The business could use a lot more storytelling like this.”

Port wins third place with “Pomplamoose Calls the Tune,” a look at the San Francisco outfit’s alternative approach to the ever-in-peril music business. “What could have been a routine profile of an alternative band soared,” wrote the judge. “Nice writing touches throughout and it made readers smarter.”

“It’s not often that you read a story about a con man and actually feel sorry for him,” the judge wrote. “But that is just one of accomplishments of Greg Maddaus’ superbly written and reported piece about B-movie maker Glen Hartford.”

“This story is so compelling that it could be the basis for its own movie,” added the judge.

Second place goes to Malisow for “Down the Hatch,” a piece on a pharmaceutical for schizophrenia and the pill’s controversial history.

“This is great tell-all about how drug companies illegally promote their products for unapproved uses,” the judge wrote. “While the story is based partly on a lawsuit by the Texas attorney general, it digs deeply into the underside of how drug companies make their money, often to the harm of patients.”

O’Dell takes third place with “Bailed-out banks snap up tax liens”. The article focuses on how major banks are buying homeowners’ tax debts despite being expected to help people avoid foreclosure.

“If you didn’t have a high opinion of banks, it is only going to get worse after reading this report. This is an extremely well-reported piece on a shaddy underside of the banking business – banks that buy up tax liens when homeowners are unable to pay their property taxes,” the judge wrote.

“A newspaper’s job is to be a watchdog for its community, and the Republic owned this story from the beginning,” the judge wrote. “They helped expose possible wrongdoing, served as a vehicle for change and explained it in proper context very well on deadline.”

“Breaking a big story,” wrote the judge, “especially one that has been brewing for months, is difficult enough. Putting it in the proper perspective and explaining every last detail the way the Post did is extraordinary.”

“Obviously,” the judge continued, “the writer and staff knew that trade day would come eventually. When it did, they were more than ready and covered it from every angle. First-rate reporting, analysis and commentary.”

The judge called it “the raw story of one woman’s struggles to find her way in life” and praised the story for being “packed with details and emotion. Well done.”

Overall, the judge wrote, “the stories covered a wide range of topics and helped reaffirm that there is quality sports journalism taking place throughout the country on a daily basis. Depth in reporting separated the top three selections, but there were many other high quality entries. Thank you for allowing me to participate.”

Judged by Steve Bradley, lead local editor for sports, Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle. 43 entries.

Brodeur’s columns are interactive in a fascinating, multi-faceted way. In many columns, she interacts directly with her subjects, and she subtly brings the reader along, too. It’s a ‘you-are-there’ approach to column-writing that’s as enjoyable as it is thought-provoking.”

“Second place goes to a rookie columnist,” the judge wrote of Josh Brodesky, “who shows a self-assurance and sophistication beyond his experience.

“I was very moved by his column about 19-year-old Pedro Espinoza, “an immigration Rorschach test” that highlights the inhumanity of our treatment of kids who are American in everything but the name. He boldly outlines the problem, and the cruelty, of treating immigrant children like criminals when they have been raised here since early childhood.”

“In another moving column,” the judge added, “Brodesky writes about veteran fellow reporters who are being laid off. Many, many reporters are experiencing similar emotions these days, but few have the courage, or the forum, to write about them.

“If Brodesky is this good in his first year as a columnist, I can’t wait to see what’s next.”

The judge awarded a tie for third place, noting that “the two third-place winners are a study in contrasts, yet both exemplify the best in column-writing.”

Overall, the judge wrote: “Wow — what a great group of entries. It gives me faith in the future of column-writing, even in these difficult times for our industry. I was particularly impressed with The Seattle Times’ strong roster of columnists and editorial writers. It’s clearly a place where a lot of good writing and profound thinking are going on.”

“Due to the many superb entries,” the judge continued, “this is one of the toughest judging assignments I’ve ever had. Some of my favorite pieces were written by columnists who didn’t end up winning; in my final decision, I looked for consistency and range.”

“All of the headlines in the entry from George Riggle of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are spot-on for their tone,” the judge wrote. “He shows a great talent for using words in clever ways that add depth to his headlines. In no case does he sacrifice accuracy or accessibility for his wordplay.

“James Yu of The Oregonian showed great ingenuity in saying a lot with very few words,” the judge wrote.

“He packs multiple levels of meaning into his headlines. Two lead sports stories illustrate this. The Ducks lost a key game to USC when their kicker missed a last-second attempt, wide left, and thus cost the team a chance at the national title. Yu covered all of that by writing: ‘Left – out of the picture.’ Earlier in the season, they lost to powerhouse LSU, and Yu covered the national implications by writing: ‘S-E-C you later, Ducks.’ His overline for a photo of an old gent who returned to the University of Oklahoma to get his degree after 61 years was simple and elegant: Sooner, much later.’”

“This piece begins with an adaptation of a childhood ditty, the kind of approach that can often go awry,” the judge wrote. “But Glenn Cook is creative and clever enough to pull it off. He then switches gears, explaining in plain English a somewhat complicated set of circumstances. The rare combination of creativity and clarity makes it a winner.”

“Doug MacEachern penetrates the bluster and posturing that Sheriff Joe Arpaio uses to deflect criticism by focusing intently on the sheriff’s dismal performance of his job duties. In the best traditions of journalism, MacEachern deftly documents how Arpaio’s incompetence has denied justice and protection to innocent victims,” says the judge.

Kerr takes third for the editorial “Separation of powers,” about a lawsuit in Nevada over a state senator’s multiple positions.

John Locher takes third place with his take on Floyd Mayweather Jr.’s crushing blow to Victor Ortiz during the World Boxing Council Welterweight title fight.

“Boxing action doesn’t get better than this,” the judge wrote.

Overall, the judge wrote, there were “some fine entries here. But these three are clearly the winners in sports. It’s almost always about timing with the best sports pictures and the football and boxing photos are the right instant. Great work and kudos to all.”

Judged by Gary Kemper, director for North America, European Pressphoto Agency. 43 entries.

“This was such an undeniably powerful, important and stunning story,” the judges wrote.

“The judges work in a military area, and the magnitude of this story and social issue is hardly lost on us. Each photo was impeccably executed and self-evident. In addition to the meticulous execution of the images, the entry was held together with a very thoughtful, highly disciplined, and TIGHT edit. Absolutely every image was purposeful and meaningful, easily conveying the dire and desperate nature of Scott’s struggles. This entry began strong, ended strong, and was unrelenting throughout. The ending image – a storm as metaphor – was the perfect way to finish a story like this. Really. Nicely. Done.”

“Clearly, this was a very highly stylistic and lyrical set of images,” the judges wrote. “With the first-place story, it rose above the rest in the consistent style and execution of the images. Its strength was the consistent and arresting aesthetics of the images, which were cohesive in their vision and really ‘put the viewer there.’ Arguably, this entry conveyed a sense-of-place perhaps better than any other entry.”

“Over and above the seductive imagery, however,” the judges continued, “the collection of photos struggled to hang together. It was challenged by the discipline of the edit, which wasn’t as tight as it could have been (though it was tighter than the remaining finalists). In the end, it was less of a strong story than it was a poignant and sometimes dark photo essay, full of interpretive imagery, moments and haunting portraits, but ultimately coming short of an explicit, strong and overarching narrative, or message.”

“Powerful photojournalism, among other things, takes people into places where they can’t go – or in this case, dare not go,” the judges wrote.

“So this very strong series of news images showing the clash between the Occupy Denver protestors and police rose to the top with the judges. Again, this entry was bolstered by a tight edit and consistently powerful and arresting (no pun intended) imagery. The photographers braved many risks by entering into the conflict, and the images put the readers there – and certainly much closer to the action than they’d want to go. Congratulations on an exemplary job at covering a news story.”

Overall, the judges wrote, “The editing among the entries seemed to make the difference and was the factor that parsed out the entries from one another. In general, the tighter the edit, the better the piece did in the contest. The loose-edited work suffered from redundant or secondary images and brought on viewer fatigue. Entrants are encouraged to think very critically about their selects and make every image count.”

“This piece is very thorough in information,” the judge wrote. “The depth of each subtopic and range in detail is everything the viewer needs to know. All interactive possibilities was considered.”

Second place goes to the staff of the Center for Investigative Reporting and California watch for “The Price of Gas,” a journalism cartoon examining the external costs of gasoline use, including air pollution and health problems.

“The entire video animation flowed very well,” the judge wrote. “Everything seemed timed correctly, not overly fast, a pace that you can digest information. Visuals are kept stylized and transitions are clear so that the viewer can easily pass from one thought to another, section to section.”

Cieslak takes first place with a front page package that used stark, black-and-white photos to illustrate a look back at the shooting that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and a dozen others and killed six at a political event outside a Safeway store in Tucson.

“‘Tucson tragedy: A fatal chain of events’ is powerfully presented,” the judge wrote. “Bold, iconic photos are powerful in their simplicity, displayed perfectly in an organized and uncomplicated style. This entry was by far the most distinctive in this group of entries.”

“‘9/11′ is also powerfully presented,” the judge wrote. “I applaud the designer for taking such bold chances in an A1 design. Love the simple typography, torn edges in the lead image and the bold use of white space.”

“A stunningly shot, masterfully edited portrait of life after war,” the judge wrote. “Just when you think it’s gone on too long, it turns another corner and takes you deep into the recesses of a mind still haunted by where it has been and what it is supposed to do now.”

“Great character video, tight editing,” the judge wrote. “Just a fun piece with a lot of heart.”

Sugano and Sulek earn third with a Sept. 11 anniversary piece about one Flight 93 passenger’s voice mail messages.
“A fresh take on the 9/11 anniversary, showing how one lost life changed many,” the judge wrote. “The editing was a bit clumsy, but the story overpowered.”

“This piece was, in one word, elegant,” the judges wrote. “The display was logical – the judges knew where to click first. The main video was well-executed, the photography was stunning and the supplemental interactive media was well-balanced and fit within the sensibilities of the piece.”

The staff at California Watch takes second for expansive coverage of seismic safety at California public schools, titled “On Shaky Ground.”

“This was an impressive piece of journalism,” the judges wrote. “The use of media – from document clouds, to timelines, to iPhone app, to interactive maps – was thorough and at times exhausting.

“The biggest criticism about the piece was ease of navigation. The judges felt that with such a massive undertaking on the reporting and data collection, there needed to be clearer and more cohesive way to display the overall story with all its bells and whistles.”

“A very good collection of stories, videos and graphics that paint a picture of community wanting change,” the judges wrote. “Clean and simple storytelling.”

For the category in general, the judges noted, “Very interesting submissions – that prompted a lot of discussion from the judges. Although traditionally we would critique heavily just on the quality of the videos, in this contest we took storytelling AND presentation as critical components to our judgments.”

Watlington earns first place with “Raices latinas en Colorado son profundas,” an article about the ethic intolerance faced by Hispanics despite their deep roots in the West, which drew their ancestors as early as 1500, decades ahead of the arrival of the Mayflower.

Second place goes to Arredondo for “Sundance vuelve latino,” which reported on the five Latino films among the 14 competing for the top prize at the Sundance Film Festival.